[HN Gopher] BitClout, a social network with big backers and voca...
___________________________________________________________________
BitClout, a social network with big backers and vocal critics
Author : elsewhen
Score : 85 points
Date : 2021-03-28 11:18 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (decrypt.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (decrypt.co)
| brodo wrote:
| "What you get to do is monetize yourself," says Diamondhands.
|
| Marx said that capitalism turns everything - including people and
| their interactions with each other - into commodities. He did not
| know on how many levels he was right.
| keenreed wrote:
| Marxism is much better, but it has nasty habit of killing
| farmers and starving its people to death.
| brodo wrote:
| Marx is the most important critic of capitalism and
| dismissing his critique with "Stalin though" does not really
| address the point. Even if you think Marxism is totally bad
| in all it's forms that does not mean that Marx' critique of
| capitalism is invalid. You don't have to be a cook to know if
| a soup is over-salted.
| guscost wrote:
| Sure, but maybe this is still progress. I would much rather be
| "publicly traded" than "privately held".
|
| Also, missing from this argument is the inevitability that
| every communist government just outright _enslaves_ its people.
| llaolleh wrote:
| My take on the Bitclout is that it's another mechanism for people
| to hedge inflationary risk by pegging the value of their cash to
| the individual. The revolutionary idea that this project seems to
| get at is that anyone can create their own currency. If you think
| about it in those terms it's a powerful idea. It's decentralizing
| the decentralized financial system one step further.
|
| But in no way I would classify this is a decentralized version of
| Twitter. Lot of things are not quite correct.
| AzzieElbab wrote:
| Well put. That is how I see it as well. "Decentralised Twitter"
| is just a phrase used to politicise the product
| ketamine__ wrote:
| Alleged CEO: https://twitter.com/nadertheory?s=09
|
| Previous venture: https://medium.com/basis-blog/basis-update-
| ae96e3565b1d
| paulgb wrote:
| Isn't that the guy who raised $100M+ for a stablecoin that was
| fundamentally flawed and then blamed regulators when it didn't
| work?
|
| Edit: Just saw your edit, that's the one.
| ketamine__ wrote:
| Yep, added link.
| serial_dev wrote:
| Is that you, MeowMeowBeenz?
| glrsbstrd wrote:
| lol hahaha xD
| glrsbstrd wrote:
| Thts funny
| AzzieElbab wrote:
| I actually like the idea of content creators monetisation upfront
| whether bitclout will work or not
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Doesn't that already exist in the form of Patreon, YouTube
| Premium or even OnlyFans, and works very well without being
| attached to some kind of useless blockchain/cryptocurrency?
| AzzieElbab wrote:
| Not really, because these platforms technically own your
| content
| smt88 wrote:
| No they don't. You still have full rights to your content
| that you post there.
| AzzieElbab wrote:
| Ok content - yes, monetisation - no, distribution/reach -
| no.
| sudo_raspberry wrote:
| If you delete your video from youtube, they have the
| right to store it on their servers until they want to get
| rid of it, and you're allowing people to use your
| content, i.e reactions videos, which are oddly popular
| these days.
| the_local_host wrote:
| Wait, what? How are other people allowed to use the
| content? I mean, I'm sure it happens, regardless of being
| allowed, but it seems like a content owner would be able
| to issue a DMCA takedown to stop it.
| iloveluce wrote:
| The founder claims he has investments from Sequoia, Andreessen
| and Social Capital??!?!
|
| This is from their Techcrunch
| https://techcrunch.com/2021/03/22/crypto-social-network-bitc...
|
| I don't think this true which makes me think this is a scam
| FreeRadical wrote:
| It's true, it's been verified via other sources
| radihuq wrote:
| It is true, Chamath from Social Capital mentioned it towards
| the end of the recent All-In podcast
| mike_d wrote:
| They claim to have received investment from Winklevoss Capital,
| and both the Winklevoss twins have claimed their profiles. I
| imagine that wouldn't happen for a company falsely claiming
| their affiliation.
| Ariarule wrote:
| I am surprised given both the similarity even in _name_ and using
| the a similar practice of creating profiles with an assigned
| value from public profiles on social media sites that this is not
| drawing more comparisons with Klout. Has Klout been dead _that_
| long? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klout
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| I have to unfollow people on Twitter whenever they start pitching
| their Substack, affiliate links, paid courses, or other money
| making enterprise. I use social media for information, not to be
| turned into a money-making asset for those I follow.
|
| Weaving markets and cryptocurrency into the fabric of a social
| network sounds like a dream come true for people trying to
| monetize their followers, but a nightmare for anyone who actually
| wants to follow them.
|
| BitClout also uses some nasty dark patterns to get people to sign
| up. They scrape your profile from other social media sites, then
| assign it a "value" with a dollar amount. You have to sign up to
| claim the value, but after signing up you discover that the value
| isn't real and you aren't claiming the supposed money that was
| waiting for you.
| bidirectional wrote:
| As an aside, I agree regarding the constant advertisement on
| Twitter, but I find the constant oversharing even worse. So
| many times I will see a few quality tweets from someone I don't
| follow, either retweeted by people I do follow or just
| recommended by the Twitter algorithm. Then when I do follow
| them the occasional interesting tweet is outnumbered 10:1 by
| mundane personal information about e.g. their kids or what
| they're having for dinner. No complaints about random people
| who use it as a social platform amongst friends doing this, but
| serious jouranlists with 50k followers who use Twitter as a
| career tool also do it. It reeks of narcissism.
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| I just unfollow people who have no Twitter-discipline and
| post random useless personal stuff, even if they do post
| quality tweets every now and then. Best to keep your follower
| list small and selective. Quality info will still get to you.
| near wrote:
| Different people follow for different things. Some people
| like seeing that other stuff. It would be very helpful if
| Twitter let accounts tag tweets into categories, and let
| people choose to subscribe or unsubscribe to those.
| Maintaining multiple Twitter accounts for different content
| is very tedious. No doubt your point is valid as well, it's
| easy to get addicted to that platform, and the likes and
| notification system gamifies that need for validation.
| nocommandline wrote:
| >>> It would be very helpful if Twitter let accounts tag
| tweets into categories, <<<
|
| Something close is 'Topics' where Twitter automatically
| categorizes tweets into Topics such as Programming, Sports,
| Startup, etc. You can follow a topic and thus see only
| tweets in that group. So Mr A sends 2 tweets - one about
| his kids and the other about Python. If you're following
| the topic 'Programming', you'll only see the second tweet
| throwaway1777 wrote:
| I gotta disagree there. The original Twitter was all about
| sharing random shit. People take it too seriously sometimes
| now that it's big business.
| ric2b wrote:
| Did you mean BitClout, on your last paragraph?
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| Yes, thank you. Autocorrect changed it. Fixed.
| solosoyokaze wrote:
| The only reason to publish something to social media is to
| promote your business initiatives. Otherwise you're just
| letting an ill behaving private company monetize your
| personal/social life. You can either be exploited or leverage
| the system for whatever gain you can eek out of it.
| brnt wrote:
| > I use social media for information
|
| Oh boy.
| mike_d wrote:
| > They scrape your profile from other social media sites, then
| assign it a "value" with a dollar amount. You have to sign up
| to claim the value
|
| Only if you are one of the ~1500 initial users they seeded the
| system with. You don't have any money waiting for you because
| nobody has invested in you.
| AzzieElbab wrote:
| I actually pay for few substacks. I do not see anything wrong
| with paying for independent content and none of the people I
| subscribe to had ever over advertised. To me it is about the
| value these people provide.
| risyachka wrote:
| Totally agree. If Substack or self-promoted book has good
| value - I am thankful that people promote it.
|
| Dismissive attitude makes you miss out on a lot of
| opportunities.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| I'm also subscribed to a few substacks, but I don't want to
| subscribe to 20 different people's newsletters.
|
| Nothing wrong with paying for content, but I don't want my
| Twitter feed full of daily pitches to sign up for the same
| thing over and over again. I use Twitter as a social network
| to communicate with people, not consume advertisements for
| content on other platforms. When someone turns their Twitter
| feed into a stream of ads or asks, I unfollow.
| thejohnconway wrote:
| That attitude seems extraordinary to me. People need to make a
| living, and if you don't pay them to produce the stuff you
| like, either they will stop doing it, or turn to shady crap
| like whatever this BitClout thing is, NFTs, or just spyware
| advertising.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| Nothing wrong with making a living, but I don't visit Twitter
| every day to see streams of advertisements any more than I
| watch YouTube so I can see the ads. I don't mind seeing
| occasional ads or asks or self-promotion, but when the self-
| promotion drowns out the useful content I unfollow.
|
| > if you don't pay them to produce the stuff you like, either
| they will stop doing it, or turn to shady crap like whatever
| this BitClout thing is, NFTs, or just spyware advertising.
|
| What a cynical take. "Pay me or I'll advertise spyware!" It
| doesn't work like that. I use Twitter as a social network to
| communicate with people, not to be pitched products I don't
| want.
|
| I'm not asking for free stuff, I just want a decent signal to
| noise ratio and some honest conversations.
| rchaud wrote:
| It's the individual's choice to turn their personal Twitter
| (or email list or blog) into a billboard. Similarly it is the
| user's choice to unfollow said individual if they dislike
| billboards.
|
| I myself have had to do this for numerous art accounts as
| sometime in 2021 they all started shilling NFTs.
| thejohnconway wrote:
| Who said it wasn't an individual choice? Many things you're
| perfectly within your rights to do have negative or
| perverse consequences.
|
| For nearly all artists, their "personal" Twitter was always
| a billboard. If you have been enjoying people's art, but
| never given them any money for it _, it's hardly surprising
| they turn to some strategy that might make them money, is
| it?
|
| _ If you have been financially supporting artists you like
| in some other way, this doesn't apply.
| snicksnak wrote:
| > I use social media for information, not to be turned into a
| money-making asset for those I follow.
|
| can you describe what you use as sources of information on
| twitter? Can't be any traditional media outlets because they
| also want you to pay.
| meowface wrote:
| There are many independent individuals who share interesting
| information and opinions on Twitter. But they're stuck in a
| sea of... everything else everyone associates with Twitter.
|
| I strongly doubt they meant following a corporation's
| Twitter, or something like that.
| the_snooze wrote:
| If it's available where you live, very local news (like at
| the neighborhood or town level) is pretty useful to follow
| for info like why a road is closed or what local trails you
| should check out.
|
| Professionally, I also follow academic conferences I'm
| involved in. They tweet announcements like deadlines and
| highlight new research.
| root_axis wrote:
| > _I use social media for information, not to be turned into a
| money-making asset for those I follow._
|
| I mean it's social media... literally the entire purpose of it
| is to monetize you, any information you manage to extract from
| it is just a tertiary side effect. Not only that, but typically
| the quality of information exchanged on social media is of the
| lowest quality, so you're really getting a bad deal on the
| whole if this is your expectation.
| Roark66 wrote:
| For f**'s sake, when will people with money stop funding every
| stupid idea just because it involves
| (blockchain|token|social|web3.0)?
|
| This whole ecosystem starts to really remind me of Ponzi
| schemes.Im quite curious why regulators don't see the same thing.
| loceng wrote:
| It does mimic an MLM-Pyramid and Ponzi scheme, and this is
| exactly why they keep investing - they need to keep it moving -
| creating tools for people to use, even though competitively
| they cost more - but for early adopters using their early
| bought Bitcoin (etc) they've already gained profit and aren't
| spending their initial investment, they are also re-investing
| to perpetuate the appearance of adoption and usefulness.
|
| Nowhere have I ever seen a "this is how much this costs vs.
| current options" in pitch decks for these companies though -
| price competitiveness since the beginning of time being the
| most important factor for competition (aside from governance
| which we'll eventually get back to).
|
| Edit to add: I 100% expect all of my counter-narrative posts to
| get downvoted as Bitcoin "army of HODLers" is financially
| incentivized to suppress anything negative about their scheme.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| In this case it indeed seems like a Ponzi scheme, but in a
| lot of cases where businesses suddenly decide to (re)do a
| solved problem with blockchain, it's more in an attempt to
| raise VC funding or buy-in from large clueless companies
| rather than from crypto people.
| meowface wrote:
| Don't worry, I think the majority of HN readers essentially
| share your opinion. Possibly even the vast majority.
|
| The people who get downvoted are the ones who say
| cryptocurrencies - as a technology - serve absolutely no
| purpose to humanity other than scams, fraud, laundering, drug
| trafficking, and other criminal activity, as well as useless
| zero-sum speculation and shuffling around of funny money, at
| the cost of country-level electricity use dedicated solely to
| generating and hashing pseudorandom numbers all day.
|
| (Which isn't that far off the mark, but it elides the
| genuinely interesting aspects of the technological and
| cryptographic innovations, as well as the full potential of
| general-purpose decentralized smart contracts and all the
| current legitimate use cases. Plus the fact that Proof of
| Stake, if successful, basically eliminates the electricity
| and environmental problems.)
| CynicusRex wrote:
| >It does mimic an MLM-Pyramid and Ponzi scheme
|
| It does so because it is.
| Sebb767 wrote:
| Aren't we at web 4.0 now?
|
| (slightly sarcastic, but honest question)
| ValentineC wrote:
| You forgot NFTs, which are what I would consider to _really_ be
| like the tulip mania [1] of old.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania
| solosoyokaze wrote:
| Investors always pour into spaces and make a ton of bad bets.
| How many photo sharing apps got funded? Social networks?
| Podcast things?
|
| Most investments are bad and most investors aren't very good.
| The crypto stuff is just the latest investment trend, but not
| really different than what came before it.
| dageshi wrote:
| Cause they made a ton of money on some equally daft idea in the
| past?
| jancsika wrote:
| > For f*'s sake, when will people with money stop funding every
| stupid idea just because it involves
| (blockchain|token|social|web3.0)?
|
| I feel exactly the same way-- investors would do way better
| with ideas that involve (blockchain&(token|social|web3.0))
|
| If we go that route regulators will be too busy making money
| hand over fist to even think about becoming crony capitalists.
| anm89 wrote:
| I don't really care about this topic but this wreaks of a hit
| piece.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-28 23:02 UTC)